Meryl Streep

[kafka]

nusan said:

But just because people have done it in the past, doesn't mean people should have to exploit themselves now. I think Meryl's totally right on this issue. I'm not against nudity in itself, I'm European so I'm very used to it. But I am against blatant exploitation of women in film(even if the actress in question chooses to exploit herself) because I think it's inherently damaging to women and especially young girls.

I agree with you but, again, I was just playing Devil's Advocate. And just because something shouldn't be done doesn't change the fact that the game sometimes, unfortunately, works that way. Hence, Marilyn's image. Yes, society should be different but it's not. And it's been rather similar for a while. So Kiera and Scarlet's cover is nothing particularly unusual or new. Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate when pointing out the long historical similarities. That, however, doesn't mean I personally think there is no reason to change the unfortunate historical trend.

FWIW, I'm European too. Now I really going because I'm bloody late.

[niddlemiddle]

kafka said:

nusan said:

But just because people have done it in the past, doesn't mean people should have to exploit themselves now. I think Meryl's totally right on this issue. I'm not against nudity in itself, I'm European so I'm very used to it. But I am against blatant exploitation of women in film(even if the actress in question chooses to exploit herself) because I think it's inherently damaging to women and especially young girls.

I agree with you but, again, I was just playing Devil's Advocate. And just because something shouldn't be done doesn't change the fact that the game sometimes, unfortunately, works that way. Hence, Marilyn's image. Yes, society should be different but it's not. And it's been rather similar for a while. So Kiera and Scarlet's cover is nothing particularly unusual or new. Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate when pointing out the long historical similarities. That, however, doesn't mean I personally think there is no reason to change the unfortunate historical trend.

FWIW, I'm European too. Now I really going because I'm bloody late.

I think what I find troubling, at least for me, is not that Hollywood is sexual; you're both correct, it always has been. The issues I have are based on the blurring of boundaries with Hollywood and normal children that didn't exist when I was young (or at least that I can remember).

Back in my parents generation, people found Marilyn Monroe to be ultra sexy but they were still wearing the poodle skirts and a pony-tail on their head. Yes, sure some went out and dyed their hair platinum, but it wasn't the norm.
My generation had Madonna, and again, while there were many who emulated her, my school wasn't exactly filled with them.

Today, I see more mid-drifts that I care too, especially on small girls.
So, in essence, I agree with Meryl because I think the sexual nature of Hollywood is hitting too close to home now. Little girls will think it's the norm to be sexy, when they are entirely too young to even know what it means.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go a rant.

[kafka]

niddlemiddle said:

Today, I see more mid-drifts that I care too, especially on small girls.
So, in essence, I agree with Meryl because I think the sexual nature of Hollywood is hitting too close to home now. Little girls will think it's the norm to be sexy, when they are entirely too young to even know what it means.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go a rant.

I know my opinion means little to you but I was glad you said what you felt. And, FWIW, I agree with you. One of my pet peeves is the Britney-fication of young children and I would read with horror articles about 6 year old girls having Britney birthday parties. A Britney-look-alike would show the little girls how to look like the cretin, replete with stomach-baring short tops, hot pants, make-up and more. The height of this insanity was many years back, when Britney was still successful with her Lolita impression, but I don't think it's really stopped since then. The emphasis has merely shifted in focus (to colour-coded sex bracelets for 7th graders), but it's never disappeared.

Oh dear. I had a small rant of my own. To stay on topic, I fully agree with you about the increasingly explicit sexualization of society and women. But --- just to play Devil's Advocate again -- is this not a natural progression from the sexually explicit innuendos of Mae West in the 20s/30s, the pin-up photos of the 50s, the almost universal acceptance of Bo Derek and the Charlie's Angels in the 70s/80s, the objectification of a teenage Debbie Gibson or "Baby" in Dirty Dancing?

Also, regarding the blurring of boundaries, a part of me thinks there is a natural -- but rather dangerous --- tendency to idealize the past. The blurring of lines between Hollywood and every day youth always existed. Witness the impact of the Studio 54 days in the 70s; Jimmy Dean's rebellious image in the 50s or the cool suave alcoholic partying of the Rat pack; the whole wild 30s and the prohibition days of the 20s. Not to mention the impact of Elvis upon the youth's social inhibitions.

But, imo, the late 60s/70s are the ultimate example of Hollywood's lifestyle blending over to the common masses. It didn't happen solely because it was the stars' glamourous existence but Hollywood certainly glamorized a certain rebellious image which was subsequently emphasized by events of the day. Think of people like Steve McQueen or movies like the Godfather which raised the outlaw criminal to heights of adoration. Or Smokey and the Bandit on a lower level, not to mention Clint Eastwood's appearance on the scene.

My point, and I apologise for details getting in the way, is that Hollywood has always been a socio-cultural force that has pushed the envelope. To paraphrase Winston Churchill's comment to Lady Astor, "Madam, you're clearly for sale. We're only quibbling about the price." Or, in this case, the degree. Yes, the envelope has been pushed a bit further than it was 10 or 20 years ago, but I think it's a bit of an easy "out" to blame everything on Hollywood's degenerative status as it is right now. Because, ultimately, "plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose."

Some of that is playing the Devil's Advocate, some of it is genuine. If you want my honest opinion, I blame the media (particularly the fashion media) for having created a culture where women are not valued or cherished as they normally are. The emphasis is on looking like a 14 yr old anorexic Lolita and, everything short of that, is deemed inadequate and unattractive. It's the culture -- fueled by the mainstream media --- which makes people like poptart Britney successful, puts increasingly younger girls on the cover of magazines and tells them that they're washed up after the age of 20. It's that media and culture which leads young girls to dress like Sl*ts, wear colour bracelets to show what sex act they're willing to do, and makes them adore Paris Hilton.

And Paris is the ultimate creation of culture-meeting-media. Celebrity for the sake of celebrity alone, and constantly publicized by the press as the ultimate in "Hotness." Is it Hollywood which made Paris and created such a bad role model? No. Emphatically no.

To bring this back on topic: the discussion started with Meryl's comments on Kiera and Scarlet's cover. She thought they were sexualising themself unnecessarily. And then you thought that Hollywood pushed the boundaries to the point whereby they impacted normal children on a daily basis.

All that's true on one level but, on another, it's not. The Vanity Fair cover was a sexualisation but it's always happened. And, imo, it's not necessarily Hollywood which pushes the boundaries or influences the young but the mainstream media.

I hope you will forgive me for the length of this. I enjoy cultural analysis and the chance to debate things, especially if it's something other than the shape of KAK's pillow. ;D

[Ginger]

As much as I adore Meryl, there is definitely something asexual and straightlaced about her and her whole career. That's fine, but it would suck if everybody were like that. I also want to see people who are wildly beautiful and sexy who are willing to take it off (male and female).

[plush]

She's always had a motherly look, someone whom I'd be ashamed to see in a sex scene.(Is there any movie where she had any explicit sex scenes?)

While a great actress who makes me feel for each character she's portraying, I can't help but see her off-screen persona as well.The nice,well-mannered,thoughtful,charming,intelligent,selfless woman with a good deal of common sense is always there in her characters. Can she play an evil woman? I haven't seen many of the movies you guys mentioned, but in the ones I've seen she hasn't.So this is just curiosity on my part for other Meryl fans.

That's fine, but it would suck if everybody were like that. I also want to see people who are wildly beautiful and sexy who are willing to take it off (male and female).

I completely agree Ginger. Meryl reminds me of my mother's school of thought. I respect her opinion and I agree in that some young starlets exploits themselves sexually way too much (Lindsay) but I wouldn't want that taken away from me. I'd like to drool over pictures of beautiful people, regardless of how superficial it might be. I rememember reading somewhere that (paraphrasing) "she wished she'd been prettier and sexier, because there were certain parts she wanted to do, but couldn't because the character didn't fit her physique". I thought that was so humble and honest of her. She's always looked very plain to me if I just look at her features but her soul and personality make her glow and look quite beautiful at times.

[Coffeecakes]

One question, sorry for my ignorance but what is a deviated septum?

As for her acting, I think she is great. As for the nudity and such I agree with Ginger and plush. Some people don't do it, that's fine, but doesn't mean others cannot take their clothes off.

[niddlemiddle]

kafka said:

I know my opinion means little to you but I was glad you said what you felt.

Why would you say that?? Your opinion is spot on... especially....

If you want my honest opinion, I blame the media (particularly the fashion media) for having created a culture where women are not valued or cherished as they normally are. The emphasis is on looking like a 14 yr old anorexic Lolita and, everything short of that, is deemed inadequate and unattractive. It's the culture -- fueled by the mainstream media --- which makes people like poptart Britney successful, puts increasingly younger girls on the cover of magazines and tells them that they're washed up after the age of 20. It's that media and culture which leads young girls to dress like Sl*ts, wear colour bracelets to show what sex act they're willing to do, and makes them adore Paris Hilton.

I couldn't have said it better myself. It's also something I stuggle with because for some strange reason, in my youth, I wasn't heavily influenced by pop-culture but now that I've become a mom to a little girl, I'm terrified that she'll be influenced by the likes of Britney or whomever her generation churns out.
I so badly want her to respect herself and rise above peer-pressure.

And Kafka, for the record, my son calls me Mommy and after I offended you I came to the realization, I really love how it sounds. I secretly hope I'll always be his mommy.

[Deleted]

How's this for an unpopular opinion?: When I was growing up I kind of despised Meryl Streep. lol.

The reason I disliked her so much is because I think she's received roles that should have gone to other actresses. I know that sounds silly. It's not her fault that the idiots in Hollywood wanted to cast her in everything under the sun. But it just BUGGED the hell out of me. Examples include:
Karen Silkwood in Silkwood. That role should've been played by someone that could convey lusty, white trashiness. Someone like Debra Winger perhaps. Don't get me wrong, I think Meryl was very good in the part and I'm astonished by her range. But I hated how she snatched up all these roles because of her reputation as the greatest actress evah.
Another one IMO is Postcards from the Edge. I was so pissed when I found out she got that role. I still don't think she's the right person for it.
It does my heart good to hear that Jessica Lange and Emma Thompson have both won roles from her. I don't think Meryl would've been better in Sweet Dreams (again, lusty white-trashiness was in order) and Remains of the Day (in this case, an empathetic, earthy nature was needed).

I think Meryl is best playing distant deeply neurotic vulnerable women. Women that can cry at the drop of a hat but you don't really connect with them as a person: Sophie's Choice and Kramer vs. Kramer are the two that come to mind.
She's also pretty darn amazing playing cold women like the one in Julia, A Cry in the Dark, Manhatten, and IIRC the character in Adaptation.

I don't think she's suited for roles where the woman is supposed to be earthy, relatable and/or empathetic unless that character is sort of a distant icon like in One True Thing. (Renee Zellweger's character is the one you're supposed to relate to.) I also don't think she's suited for roles where the character is lusty or has a raw sexuality. Sensual? Yes. Raw lusty sexuality like Jessica Lange in A Postman Always's Rings Twice or Debra Winger in pretty much every thing? No.

So while I think she's a GREAT actress, has an awesome range, lovely singing voice and a really good comic timing I don't think she's the best choice for EVERY single part she's up for. That's exactly the kind of treatment she received during the 1980s and early 90s and it bugged the hell out of me. lol
I still say other actresses would've been better suited for Silkwood, Postcards from the Edge, Out of Africa, and Heartburn among others.

Just let me put on my flame retardent suit before you start firing missives at me.

[Deleted]

I would love to know her asking price, especially after Reese's figure got bumped up to $29 million. I like Reese but I think it's a shame that a legend like Meryl is probably getting a lot less.

Two things: 1) Reese's "people" have denied this and 2) Reese was/is set to be a producer of that movie and the news article stated that she COULD earn up to $29 million. It was never a salary for just acting in the film.

I also love Meryl Streep. I think it's interesting that our perception is that she stays out of the spotlight, though. It's definitely true today, but what about in the early part of her career? Didn't she date Warren Beatty? I know, who hasn't, but she has the luxury now of not living the H'wood lifestyle.

She and Lily were the highlight of this truly boring and choppy Oscars. She looked absolutely gorgeous too. I think she's slimmed down a little in the last year or so, which is neither her nor there, but it showed with the Oscars dress. I actually liked her outfit at the Globes (was it last year?) when Angels in America was nominated. She looked like something out of Vermeer, but it looked great on her.

[Karrit]

Another one IMO is Postcards from the Edge. I was so pissed when I found out she got that role. I still don't think she's the right person for it.

Tversky, I cannot agree with you enough about this. It was a horrible, horrible casting decision.

And I guess I show a lack of imagination, but I would really have liked to have seen Carrie Fisher in that role.